Talk:Thomas Aquinas

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Thomas Aquinas article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
This article includes content derived from the Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, 1914, which is in the public domain.
This article incorporates text from the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition, now in the public domain.
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Thomas Aquinas as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Esperanto or French language Wikipedias.
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Version 0.5
 This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
Good article Thomas Aquinas has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
September 3, 2006 Peer review Reviewed
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Archive
Archives


Contents

[edit] Unfair exageration or extension of Thomas's disciplinary thought to support for slavery

The link that the text connects to does not say he supports slavery. It just says a lawful authority can STRIKE or punish whoever is under their authority.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.213.227.88 (talk • contribs) 1 September 2005.

I haven't read the text in question, but I know that this isn't the first time something like this has happened. The apostle Paul mentions how one should treat their slaves, and this has been wrongly construed as saying that Paul advocated slavery. He was just prescribing some ethics for the structure of the society at the time, and I can see how Aquinas could be doing the same thing without actually advocated slavery over nonslavery. FranksValli 22:06, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thomas Aquinas (whole Article, esp. biographical notes)

Hello! You may notice my Article on my home page, just as follows: http://www.geocities.com/daretoshare2004/vita_aquino.html Thank you for your respect! Greetings from Munich, Germany! Hartmut Geuder —The preceding unsigned comment was added by HGeuder (talk • contribs) 24 November 2005.

[edit] favor?

I have just added a new section to Judaism and Christianity on "love." It is just a stub of a section, hopefully others will add more about the Jewish notion. But I know that my characterization of the Christian notion is at best wildly incomplete. Perhaps among the contributors to this page there are some who could go over it and add whatever additional material, detail, nuance, explanation they think necessary. I am very concerned about not misrepresenting, or doing justice to, the Christian point of view. I also added a long quote from Maimonides to the section on Heaven and Hell; in fact, I did a rewrite a week or two ago. I know the Jewish position is well-represented but again I am concerned that in the process the Christian view may appear misrepresented or at least underrepresented. So, I'd be grateful if someone checked and made sure the Christian view(s) are accurately and sufficiently represented. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 20:43, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Aristotle and God

What I find interesting about Aquinas is the way he combines philosophy and theology.He takes alot from Aristotle whom he referred to as " The Philosopher" and blends his teachings with theology. His Famous " Five Ways to prove God's Existence" was his way of proving God's existance based on what man can know from the world. He maintained that what God teaches will always be consistent with whatever truths man will discover. He should have perhaps been more famous during his life, and probably should be read more today.(faithnet.org) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tired dad (talk • contribs) 6 February 2006.


Thomas Aquinas is most famous for his incorrect view of the fall in Eden. He taught that only the will of man was fallen and that mans intellect was not affected. This set up an area of autonomy in the intellect of man. It also set up a humanistic framework for society visible in Catholicism. When Aquinas did this the begginings of a natural theology were set. Man no longer looked to the Bible to answer the questions of metaphysics and of morals. The philosophers also began to look for truth apart from the Bible and so the artist followed, the writer and thengeneral culture followed last of all by theology. By the time we get to Kant and Rousseau, the philosophers had given up any hope of finding a unified field of knowledge. Wilhelm Hegel arrived on the scene and he changes the way humans approached the deep questions. Prior to Hegel the Biblical oresuppositions had been the default mthodology of the known world. With the arrival of Hegel that all changed. Hegel introduced a new methodlogy called dialectical methodology or synthesis in place of the previous Biblical antithesis. In dialectical methodology you have relative truth. This means two opposites can both be right. The Biblical methodology there is either right or wrong. There is no grey areas at all. If you study Plato and Socrates you will find they both grappled witth this issue. Plato knew a moral absolute must exist for true morals to exist. Leonrdo Davinci wanted to paint the soul of a tree and not merely a tree. he never painted very much because he to could not find a unified field of knowledge. These men as a result of Aquinas' incorrect view of the space time historic fall had reached a place of despair. if you view paintings by Gauguin Van Gogh Cezanne, Picasso and Bacon to mention a few. You will see they were seeing the dissapearance of the human race and the emergence of something less than the image and likeness of the God who is there. Francis A Schaeffer's 'Trilogy' is a good starting place to understand what has occurred. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.101.18.201 (talk • contribs) 9 August 2006.

Don't be so dull. Your imaginary friend doesn't exist, and you need to get out more often. Maybe you can become a buddhist and worship wheels if ignorance is your bag. 83.70.219.27 01:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

^ Speak for yourself —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.177.187.2 (talk)

[edit] What about his philosophy and theology?

I came to this article to see examples of Aquinas's worldview and I see none. I do see a section criticizing Aquinas's writings, but I see no section summarizing his theological or philosophical perspectives. Shouldn't Wikipedia give a summary of a philosopher's views a higher priority than nitpicks? I say this as a frustrated encyclopedia user, not as a partisan in this debate, because I know little to nothing about Aquinas. --Ben Applegate 19:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Added section on theology. David aukerman 02:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that there needs to be more philosophy here. The section on epistemology is woefully inadequate. Thomas' quotation given on the necessity of Divine help is followed, in the Summa, by a "but". He is very clear that God adds nothing to the "natural light" of man's reason, given to her by nature. This needs to be fixed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.249.246.163 (talk • contribs) 3 September 2006.

[edit] GA Failing

Half of this article is a list, you have two references, wild links in the article. Clean, prose, cite. Please see WP:CITE. Highway Rainbow Sneakers 15:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Moved the works to a side page.
This article is looking better - no more lists, better referencing, cleaner. How close do you think we're coming to GA status? David aukerman 02:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Philosophy?

I second the complaint of a user above who mentions that this article has nothing on his philosophy or theology. What did the man think that makes him so important? This article is in poor condition on that basis alone. Srnec 20:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Added section on theology. David aukerman 02:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] King Louis VIII

Some kind of small mistake. There's a line in this page which says: 'During 1269 to 1271 he was again active in Paris, lecturing to the students, managing the affairs of the church and consulted by the king, Louis VIII, his kinsman, on affairs of state'.

Louis VIII died in 1223, so maybe the author here is talking about Louis IX. However, Louis IX died in 1270 (i.e. before 1271), and I don't see how a French king can be kinsman to an Italian scholar. I don't know what was intended so I can't edit this page myself. Who wrote this? -David Cleave —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.31.85.248 (talk • contribs) 3 July 2006.

Good question. It looks like User:Pwqn added the text in question on 6 November 2005. I've asked this user for a response on User_talk:Pwqn, but this person has been inactive since 20 November 2005, so I don't know if we'll get an answer. David aukerman 16:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Update: The 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica gives this information (particularly the wording "his kinsman"). Perhaps newer resources might resolve the issue... - David aukerman talk 16:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moved from article

Someone added this to the section on epistemology:

Aquinas believed that the purest way to find knowledge is through divine revelation. Specifically, he stressed the necessity of divine grace: "It would seem that without grace man can know no truth. . . . we cannot know truth without grace." (This is what a Wikipedia contributor claims. In fact, this statement is taken from Aquinas' objections. On the contrary, Aquinas states in the sed contra that "Therefore without grace man of himself can know truth," although he concedes that grace at times does come to the aid of man's intellectual endeavors and that man needs God's auxilio generale to attain any truth." See Prima Secundae 109.1. Of course, I would be glad for someone to take this information and put it into the Wikipedia article in the appropriate manner. Nevertheless, I found it absolutely necessary to correct this egregious error as quickly as possible!) He was also, however, an Aristotelian and an empiricist whose influence on those two streams of Western thought is substantial.

Tom Harrison Talk 01:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for moving this comment here, Tom. This person is absolutely correct! I've made the appropriate changes. - David aukerman talk 01:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA Renom

I've droped by to review that article. You all have done a good job of improving the article, but it still needs a bit of work, so I'll put it on hold. What I need to see is inline documentation of the biography sections of the article, especially the Career section, where we share what contemporaries wrote about him. Which people? When?

Not critical, but very helpful would be some style changes in language. Most readers of the English language find it hard to read long sentences, filled with passive constructions, participles ("ing" words) and semicolons. It makes the text fell fuzzy, distant and abstract. Especially in the bio sections, try shorter sentences, active constructions (Thomas served the church ... vs. the church was served by Thomas), simple word order (subject-verb-object-direct object) and periods/commas v. semicolons. I hope that helps.--CTSWyneken(talk) 11:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments ... the biography information was added to this article long ago by someone who has since disappeared. Therefore, getting strong documentation for these things will be tricky, but we'll give it a shot.David aukerman 14:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I've rewritten the entire biography section to be more readable. Now we need some references... anyone?David aukerman 15:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
It's looking pretty good. All that's left is to satisfy the fact tags or comment out the details pending documentation and I'll promote the article. --CTSWyneken(talk) 22:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
I've tracked down sources for the remaining {{cn}} tags (at least, I think I got them all!). Most came from the 1911 EB, so I also added {{1911}} to the References section. One quote can be found in another 1911 text available online at nd.edu (link included in footnote). Let me know if I missed anything! - David aukerman talk 03:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA Passed

That does it. Congratulations! I've promoted the article to GA status. --CTSWyneken(talk) 10:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Excellent! Thanks again for all your help. - David aukerman talk 18:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
You are welcome. Next step towards FA is a peer review. --CTSWyneken(talk) 18:49, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References

This article has virtually no inline citations. Why is this? Isn't it impossible to reach FA without them? Dev920 23:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

See the discussion at GA Renom above. (First things first - right now we're going for GA status, not FA status.) Actually, there are plenty of citations in the Philosophy, Theology, and Modern Criticism sections - those are relatively new to the article. What are lacking are citations for the Biography section. After doing a little research, I've found that the biography text (and much of the text of some related articles) was added by User:Alan Millar on 10 December 2001 with the edit summary "(old encyc text)". That edition of the article says that the text comes from the "Schaff-Herzog Encyc of Religion." To that end, I've put the {{Schaff-Herzog}} tag on the Aquinas article. - David aukerman talk 13:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Update: I've added inline citations for all of the information taken from Schaff-Herzog. A few unreferenced comments remain in the text... - David aukerman talk 21:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Looks great! I've gone through and tried to replace all instances of Ibid. with a named reference in a good faith effort to conform with WP:CITE. Although I could find no explicit guidelines on the use of Ibid., I found an argument on the WP:CITE talk page to be persuasive, which I quote below:
“ Paper media can use tricks such as only giving the full publication information in the first footnote, or using words like ibid, but that is not suitable for Wikipedia because articles are constantly being changed, so the order of notes is also constantly changing. --Gerry Ashton 18:54, 4 November 2006 (UTC) ”
-Fadookie Talk 06:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Modern Criticism Cleanup

I have made two changes to the Modern Criticism section. The first one has been partially removed, being considered POV. My second edit has been the alteration of the sentence "Aquinas also maintained woman's subjection to man on account of her intellectual inferiority" because I feel that it represents a biased reading of the actual words of St. Thomas. Therefore, I have replaced it with a quotation from the Summa: "because in man the discretion of reason predominates." so the reader may form his/her own opinion. Anyway, I have opened this section in the talk page to prevent any edit war. Thanks --HaveAPinch 17:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi HaveAPinch - thanks for opening this up here. I was the one who removed your first addition to the Modern Criticism section. Here's why: I felt that the first clause ("Aquinas more polemical writings should be read as a product of its time") was more or less self-evident; this statement seems to attempt to do away with the impact of the modern criticism itself (and hence my concerns about introducing a point of view). The second clause ("many of his views, such as the case of the role of women, were exceptionally modern") is, in my mind, less questionable, but a little out of place in the context of the paragraph. Perhaps its point could be incorporated into the sentence on women exercising temporal power...?
In any case, your second change to the Modern Criticism section looks good to me. That is a helpful change. Thanks for your contributions ... and keep it up! - David aukerman talk 19:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi, David. When I first read the Modern Criticism section, I thought that the original wording of the section contained out of context references to St. Thomas and the reader was being cheated. Consider the case of the death sentence to heretics hiding the fact that lesser crimes (in Aquinas view) were already penalized with death. So I started including the original context. I acknowledge that I went too far and started including my own opinion in reference to Aquina's view of women.
When you erased this second part I understood it perfectly, but there was still that sentence in the article about Aquinas considering women as intellectually inferior to men. That's simply not what he said. But instead of including a remark in the opposite direction of the original I considered that quoting the original text would be the best choice. Had it not been for your correction, I may have not done this. So thanks a lot. --HaveAPinch 14:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Early Life

What castle? Parents live at castle "Roccasecca" near Frosinone, he flees, gets kidnapped and brought back to them in their castle "San Giovanni". Is that the same castle, or if not, where is that other one?--dunnhaupt 19:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Good question... I don't know the answer. I do know, however, that this text came from an early 20th century encyclopedia entry about Aquinas - not that that means it's necessarily accurate. For what it's worth, this entire section (Biography) is on my list of things to fix up in the near future. So hopefully this will get cleared up in good time. - David aukerman talk 00:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
In case anyone reads this, I should change my statement on the Biography section ... it still needs to be redone, updated, revamped, rewritten, etc., but it's not on my list of things to do any more - too many other things going on for me. So if you have a couple of good, new biographies of Aquinas, feel free to jump in and rewrite the biography section here. David aukerman talk 14:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Peer review – suggestions for improvement

As a response to the request for peer review, I would like to make a few suggestions:

  • First and foremost the article needs a historical background to Thomas' philosophy: what necessitated the reconciliation of Aristotelian thought with Christian theology? This has to do with the rediscovery of classical texts (the Crusades, growth of the universities etc). This subject is absent, and needs to be explored more fully.
  • Early years: 'on the way to Rome...' Out of context.
  • Career: 'provincial' is not a helpful hyperlink.
  • Ethics: 'Aquinas also greatly influenced Roman Catholic understandings of mortal and venial sins.' Needs expansion.
  • Modern criticism: Shouldn't inline citations be used also here, for consistency? Also, the last sentence ('Many biographies of Aquinas have been written over the centuries, one of the most notable by G.K. Chesterton.') is out of context. It should either (ideally) be expanded to a short bibliography, or removed altogether.

For an example of a good article on a philosopher, I suggest looking at Søren Kierkegaard, which has good prose, good use of pictures, an up-to-date bibliography, and very pretty quotation boxes.Eixo 15:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your time and suggestions, Eixo. This gives us a bit to work on... -David aukerman talk 14:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

-Also, not sure how it works, but Martin Luther King Jr. should be included under influences, because he directly cites Aquinas in his Letter From a Birmingham Jail -Black Mage- 05:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cultural depictions of Thomas Aquinas

I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information. I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list. Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article. Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this approach as a model for the editors here. Regards, Durova 17:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Italian"

I'll remove the word "Italian" from the lead line of the article. I'm not even sure that will be controversial, but it might be a good idea to list the reasons anyway:

  • it's absolutely unclear what "Italian" refers to: Italy as a state did not exist, and, as far as I can find out, the term was used for a peninsula with little or no political connotations. Thomas did not write in Italian (as far as I know?), I know no evidence he considered himself to be Italian, his influence was in no way limited to the Italian peninsula, and much of his life was spent elsewhere.
  • if the "claim" of present-day Italians should be included, it should be included later in the article.
  • I think Thomas is important enough to be listed, without qualification, as a "philosopher and theologian". IMHO, the main idea of the first words of an article should be to filter out as many readers as possible who this isn't the right article for. Anyone interested in 13th-century (that's the first bit of real information in this article) philosophy or theology (and that should be the second fact) must be interested in this article, so there's no point including "Italian" that early.
  • Thomas was born in Naples, we say so very soon in the article, and, as far as I know, that's all the word "Italian" actually has to back it up. Quite redundant, then.

Feel free to revert and discuss, but I really think this is merely an attempt to include a formula that is considered, quite inaccurately, good style in an encyclopedia, and has nothing but imitation going for it ("person" was a "country" "profession").

RandomP 16:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


Thomas was born in Naples. He spent his first 24 years in Italy. From his complexion and appearance we can tell that he is of southern Italian blood. Also, the concept of "Italy" and "Italian" were already in use at the time, as you can infer from Dante Alighieri's work, which comes only few decades later. There is no way you can ignore the fact that Thomas is Italian.

Caballaria 16:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

"From his complexion and appearance"? Sorry, I'll just not go with that sort of "but he looks Italian to me" argument. While the concept of Italy might have been around, there's a difference between saying he lived in present-day Italy (which feel free to do) and claiming he was "Italian". I'm still unconvinced that means anything.
RandomP 22:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

What the hell does "Italian" mean here? He was born not in Naples, but in Rocca Secca, in the KINGDOM of Naples, an independent country. He was therefore "Neapolitan," perhaps. His father, Landulph, was Count of Aquino, also in the Kingdom of Naples. Thomas was cousin to the Kings of France, Castile, Aragon and the Holy Roman Emperor. He spent most of his career at the University of Paris. It is an anachronism to claim his "nationality" was Italian, any more than one could call the HRE "German." It was, perhaps, a language group, but Neapolitans, venetians, Genoese, Florentines and Milanese were all quite happy to beat each others brains in during the furious and vicious internecine and interfamily wars of the Middle Ages.HarvardOxon 21:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] God and Gender

I have removed the changes by Phil Franco and gone back to the previous version by Shipmaster because, according to Aquinas' teachings, God does not have a gender. Aquinas' first point is that "God is simple, without composition of parts, such as body and soul, or matter and form." If this is the case then god certainly has no gender. Aquinas' second point is that "God is perfect, lacking nothing. That is, God is distinguished from other beings on account of His complete actuality." If god is perfect and lacks nothing then god can't be a male as then he would be lacking the feminine gender and thus not be perfect. Morgan Leigh 00:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] title of doctor of the church

The idea that the title of "doctor of the church" puts Thomas on a level with St Paul is completely mad. Nb. Paul is not on the list of doctors of the church given on Wikipedia. I am worried that the use - indeed extensive outright quotation - of an antiquated "religious encyclopedia" throughout the article - from which this fact is derived - may be cause for general revision. Frege1b 23:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

There are actually two different titles being used here. The title "Doctor of the Church" is applied to 33 people throughout history; St. Paul is not on that list, but St. Augustine is. So we shouldn't eliminate that title. I think the term you are concerned about is "Doctor Angelicus," which is (according to this article) why Aquinas is "on a level" with Paul and Augustine. I am not sure why the title "Doctor Angelicus" does this; as far as I can tell, that title always refers to Aquinas. In any case, this is what the 1953 encyclopedia (which, by the way, isn't the oldest source for this article) says. On the other hand, I do agree with you - the Biography section is in need of a sweeping revision (see previous comments on this talk page). -David aukerman talk 01:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

"Doctor angelicus" does no such thing. There grew up traditional epithets applied to the "doctors of the church." The Dominican order is sometimes referred to as "angelic" as the choir of angels supposedly regards God in the aspect of Truth, and Aquinas himself was supposedly comforted by an angel after warding off a temptation against chastity. The "aneglic heights" of his thought are also sometimes cited. St. Bonaventure, the Franciscan equiavelent of Thomas, is called "Doctor seraphicus," as the Seraphim supppsedly regard God in the aspect of Love, and a seraph supposedly appeared to St. Francis of Assisi (hence, the Franciscans are sometimes referred to as the "seraphic order"). There is no doubt that Augustine and Aquinas have been the most influential theologians in Catholic history -- either as men whose arguments are taken and built upon, or as men whose arguments must be answered by those who take a different tack. As St. Paul was the first writer whose works made it into the New Testament, and is therefore in some sense the earliest documented Christian witness and thinker, it is hard to imagine anyone attempting to equate even Thomas and Augustine combined with the influence of Paul of Tarsus as one of the original definers of Christianity.HarvardOxon 07:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. It is indeed hard to imagine Paul, Thomas, and Augustine on the same level. If/when this biography section gets rewritten, that statement will surely be left out. -David aukerman talk 18:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Angelic Doctor refers to the fact that Aquinas penned the various kinds of angels... this was done in Summa Contra Gentiles; but in fact, all he is doing is re-writing what Dionysius wrote (Aquinas quotes him).. Dionysius is now known as "Pseudo- Dionysius"A E Francis 01:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Beliefs before modern science

He is a theologian who tried to tie Greek philosophy with Christian doctrines, resulting in his belief that it was a marriage of logic and scripture. Of course, he believed that observation of natural events was a justification for the Abrahamic God. And some of his beliefs regarding the nature of the the Abrahamic God and the existence of a trinity provides for contradiction. For his time, he was a great thinker - because he was a product of his time. Mind you that he lived in the 13th century, before the introduction of modern science. Today, in the light of science, his views wouldn't be considered rational. I'm not referring to an Atheistic viewpoint -I'm referring to the secular-humanism of the Greeks and a neutral scientific view. -intranetusa —Preceding unsigned comment added by Intranetusa (talk • contribs) 00:51, 19 February 2007

[edit] View on Heretics

I'm removing this newly added section from the article because (a) it does not add to an encyclopedic understanding of Aquinas, (b) it almost sounds inflammatory or POV, (c) Aquinas himself used "reason" consistently, which this section seems to condemn as sinful, and (d) the material is quoted from a sketchy (at best) online book summary. If this material should be incorporated into this article, let's discuss it here before changing the article. David aukerman talk 17:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Fare enough - I'll find a better source and try and re-word this. I was just shocked that I have heard claims about Aquinas and his view on heretics being thrown around and couldn't find anything mentioning in the Wikipedia article. Also, I believe that the point Sam Harris tries to make using Aquinas is completely in line with your conclusion. In other words, the theology of Aquinas rationally requires the persecution of heretics. Aquinas was being rational and his rational conclusions, at least in this matter, should be alarming.

"it does not add to an encyclopedic understanding of Aquinas" this I disagree with, for instance, Nietzsche's philosophy was often a target of criticism due to Hitler drawing certain "rational" conclusions from his arguments and these are often attributed to him, though I in Aquinas case he actually drew these conclusions himself, I am not imposing them upon him. I do believe that the conclusions of one's philosophy, no matter the time (there were those that didn't support the persecution of heretics during Aquinas time)are quite important.

Point well made though, I typed this in haste and need to clean it up. Look forward to finding a version we can agree on.

[edit] Aquinas and Existentialism

I am thinking about adding a section on Aquinas and existential philosophy. Etienne Gilson calls this the only "real" existential philosophy. It came from Aquinas' interpretation of the the name of God as "I Am". St. Augustine had used the name "I Am" to decribe the essence of God by describing what God was not. This is called "negative" or "essential" theology. Augustine asked the question: "I Am" what? Aquinas saw the name "I Am" differently. "I Am" indicates the revealed nature or essence of God is "to exist". This area of study is called "existential theology" and led to the first "existential" philosophy. My question: Should this topic be added in the Aquinas section, in the exitential philosophy section, or on a completely new topic page? Any thoughts are welcome. Of course, the existential philosophy of Aquinas has nothing to do with 20th century existentialism. A E Francis 04:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)A E Francis

I would suggest creating a new page for your material on Aquinas and existential philosophy, simply because it is quite lengthy and nearly doubles the length of the article on Aquinas. David aukerman talk 15:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Dave, I have decided to put a paragraph or two in the Thomas Aquinas site, and not go into a lengthy discussion. Also, a mention of existential theology. At a later time, it may be worthwhile to create a linked separate page on all the intricacies of Aquinas an "existentialism." Maybe you want to do this? A E Francis 21:46, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I see... perhaps, if necessary, although I'm not much of a philosopher or a specialist in existential philosophy. :) Please see my comments in the following section... David aukerman talk 01:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I tried to add a little section on Thomas' endorsement of the inquisition twice. It was either cut down or completely omitted. I wonder if David Aukerman is the censor prohibitorum librorum here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.84.22 (talk) 13:29, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

You should be more careful with your accusations. I neither commented on nor modified your inquisition additions - check the article history. David aukerman talk 16:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aquinas and the Sacraments

I propose splitting this section off into its own page (e.g., Thomas Aquinas and the Sacraments). The length and depth of this section seem to dominate the overall article on Aquinas. As such, we might do well to create a separate article for this topic. Comments? David aukerman talk 01:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't have any problem with separating it; it all depends what you want this page to look like. It seemed to me that there should be a fairly "in-depth" look at waht Aquinas actually said about the sacraments. If you think it is too long for this entry, that is fine. It is going to be longer, because I have to put some more in from Summa Theologia... what do you want to do with the others I have added... death penalty, usuary, and forced baptism? A E Francis 02:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I don't see anything wrong with having a lot of information on the Aquinas page. He was a complicated person. Too spread it out in several different places just makes research on the subject difficult. What I was thinking when I wrote about the sacraments is all the people I meet (both Catholic and non-Catholic) who say the sacraments and the Church in general are not based on the Bible. If anything, even a superficial reading of Aquinas should dispel this. But I wanted people who show up on this site to have the opportunity to at least be exposed to some of Aquinas' actual thinking. Summa Contra Gentiles is 1500 pages long. I wrote a "short" synopsis of this in 2000-2002. It is 300 pages long! Summa Thoelogia is even longer. I think an effort to try to reduce Aquinas to a superficial page, such as "he was born, he thought this, he went there, he died here." is a sort of disservice to the man and the Church in general. That is just the way I feel about it. I also intend to put a section on the difference between Platonism and Neo-Platonism with Aristotle's "natural" philosophy, which Aquinas explored. But I am flexible! A E Francis 02:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
David, I have been thinking about this... how hard is it too edit these to another page? The reason I am asking is I intend to keep writing... maybe it will be worth it to see what it looks like, then do some re-arranging, or develop some different pages... I am open to suggestions. A E Francis 03:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC) Another thing that prompted me to write this is the Islamic sites... I superficially read some of these, and they aren't at all "shy" about writing long tracts about their religion... so why should we? Maybe we could rearrange some of this under a heading like "The writings of Aquinas" or the "selected philosophies" ... something like that ... as I said, I am flexible. A E Francis 04:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry about the delay... I started writing here but then got sidetracked for a while. :) Anyway, to answer your questions, it's not hard at all to move information from one page to another. And I think it probably ought to be done, since the main Aquinas page is getting pretty long, according to Wikipedia:Article_size. (They make some good points and suggestions in that article.) Having more information about Aquinas certainly isn't bad; it just needs to be readable, and it needs to be encyclopedic (i.e., not totally exhaustive). All this to say that I think some rearranging is in order; much of the new content you have added can be placed in new articles that can be linked from the main page. One sure-fire page is Aquinas and the Sacraments. Another possible new page could be Aquinas's Viewpoints (or something like that) to cover the usury, capital punishment, and forced baptism sections. I don't know if that's totally appropriate, though; my main concern is that the main Aquinas article remain as a thorough summary of his life and thought. (By the way, take a quick look at Death_penalty#Christianity; there's a nice one-sentence summary of Aquinas's position on the death penalty there.) To be thorough and verbose (like the Islam pages you mentioned) is good; to be encyclopedic (and less verbose) is better in tune with what Wikipedia is about. David aukerman talk 14:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Another thought I just had - last summer I worked to get this article up to Good Article status, and I'd like it to continue to meet the standards for GA articles. With lots of extra information in the article, I wonder if it's starting to become less of a GA article. David aukerman talk 14:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't really have any problem with moving the bulk of this to other sections; all I want is to present the most effective message; It depends on what the philosophy of this encyclopedia and this page is. Look at Encyclopaedia Britannica before 1960. The articles were fairly "exhaustive". In recent years the encyclopedias have become less informative, with less information. To me, that isn't really scholarship. Is this being written for the average high school student, or something more? To me, if you want to keep the main Aquinas page fairly straight-forward, and not too complicated, that is fine with me. I just think this info should be in Wiki somewhere. If nothing else, for the people who want to see it (and there are some). Anyway, I am going to keep writing, and if we decide to move it... then we will move it. A E Francis 01:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

This site was vandalized on June 19, 2007;; it came from 124.105.191.164;; this should be reported, and as far as I am concerned, should be blocked from any further access to Wiki. Thanks for fixing it, Dave. A E Francis 18:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I've been watching this page for over a year now, and it's been subject to vandalism pretty consistently during that time. So ... don't be surprised if it happens again. :) And if you see an edit that's not kosher, go ahead and undo it! David aukerman talk 14:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] spelling errors

Chris, thanks for cleaing up the typos.... I found a few more... there are probably a lot! Every bit helps! A E Francis 00:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] March 7

Chris... you bracketed the date March 7, but when I go there, there is no mention of Aquinas' death... A E Francis 00:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't necessarily have to. That happens with a lot of date references... usually those are there so people can find out what else happened on that date. David aukerman talk 14:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Dave, Chris, it is easy to add it; what do you think? A E Francis 01:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Go for it. David aukerman talk 13:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Done ....A E Francis 21:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandals

My neighbor told me that anyone who is on AOL cannot edit in Wiki without getting special permission;; All AOL users are automatically blocked;; This apparently was because of the troubles with vandals.A E Francis 01:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Size of article

They recommend an article larger than 32 KB should be broken up. I don't know how large this is... as I wrote, I intend to keep writing. Actually, I haven't written anything which downgrade this page, but that is a matter of opinion and taste. I spent some years as an editor to a medical legal journal, so I know how these arguments go! Anyway, if we decide to break some sections off, I don't have any problem with it. A E Francis 01:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aquinas and the death penalty

I went to that site you mentioned. This is a good and concise statement. But I don't think there is anything wrong with taking a longer look at it elsewhere. The idea you mentioned about Aquinas' thought on various subjects is a good potential source of this. I am flexible. There are a lot of subjects which could end up in a section like that. (The difference between Plato and Aristotle and the soul; Aquinas and natural moral law; etc.) If you are wanting to keep this paqe fairly simple and straightforward, this may be better on a separate page. A E Francis 01:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ready to Move

Dave, I'm ready to move, but I can't figure out how to split these out... all I do is move the whole article, which, of course, I don't want to do... you are correct... it is too long... please tell me how to move this in parts... I looked under splits, but couldn't find how to do it... also cut and paste.. A E Francis 02:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

You can do it via cut-and-paste pretty easily. Just edit the Thomas Aquinas article, cut the desired material to your clipboard, and then enter your new page name in the Wikipedia search box on the left side of the screen. Click Go, and if the page is available, you'll see a page that has a red link "create this page." Click that link, and then paste the material in the new page. You'll want to check out Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout#Lead_section to see how to construct an opening paragraph for the new article. (Just a note ... since Thought of Thomas Aquinas now redirects to Thomas Aquinas, you might need to choose a different name for the new article(s). I don't know how to override an automatic redirect.) Hope this helps... David aukerman talk 23:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

The reason "Thought of Thomas Aquinas" redirects back to "Thomas Aquinas" is because I moved my sections to that title, but then I found I had moved the entire page (I had a moment of panic, thinking I had wiped it out)... but then I hit undo... and everything came back to "normal", but the trace is left... I tried cutting and pasting, but I can't seem to find my clipboard.... I will work on it... it can't be that hard... they recommend nothing over 32 K... and this is now 91 k... so it is proper to break it up.... A E Francis 23:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC) Dave, I have started separate pages. I finally decided the easiest way to do this is to type them again on the new pages. As soon as I get them up, I am going to edit them out of this page. Should be a few days. So be patient. A E Francis 20:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] James Joyce

Perhaps Joyce should be under the 'influenced' section? After all, the last chapter of 'A Portrait of The Artist As A Young Man' is essentially comprised of Aquinas quotes.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.57.222 (talk) 17:16, 22 June 2007

[edit] WHOA!

Ok, slow down! If you're going to chop chunks out of this article, you've got to leave summaries behind. Otherwise no-one reading this article will know there's more to read about this guy's thoughts. exolon 22:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC) I am willing to leave whatever links you think are appropriate. here is the situation: I happened on this site a few weeks ago, and started adding to it. I was unaware of the limits of 32 KB.... it quickly grew to 95 KB, which as Dave has pointed out, is too long.... now I have started new pages, and since I wasn't typing fast enough, have gotten notices that these new pages were too short, or were redundant and would be deleted. I would have liked to cut and paste, but it isn't at all clearhow to do this... so that is where we are... I am typing as fast as I can... A E Francis 23:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC) I have addded links at the bottom of the page.A E Francis 23:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

There's no need to rush. 32k is a guideline, not a hard limit. It exists as there are a few archaic browsers that can't display more than 32k. Sorry about tagging your new article - didn't realise you were splitting this article up. Cutting and pasting is simple - just click the edit this page link at the top, highlight the text you want and right click to copy (or use Ctrl-C on the keyboard, then paste (Ctrl-V) into the editing window of your new page.exolon 23:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fable

The story of Aquinas and clutching the Ave Maria as an infant is undoubtedly a fable and should not be presented as truth, especially since there is no reference for it. I've removed it. Afabbro 20:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aquinas and alchemy

I'm curious as to if there are any known sources we can cite for Aquinas being an "alchemist" and if this is worthy for inclusion in the main article on him. If you peruse the what links here page you'll note there a handful of alchemy related articles that link here. It seems the Aquinas article has no mention of it, and I was wondering if that was because it was judged not notable enough for the article, or if the references to him on alchemy writeups are frivolous. --BHC 09:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know of any such sources; Aquinas's connection to alchemy is news to me. As far as I know, the topic hasn't been discussed here with respect to this particular article. My opinion is that any reference to alchemy in the Aquinas article should be rather brief, just a sentence or two at most. What do you think? David aukerman talk 23:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
In the Summa, St. Thomas says "If however real gold were to be produced by alchemy, it would not be unlawful to sell it for the genuine article, for nothing prevents art from employing certain natural causes for the production of natural and true effects, as Augustine says..." (II-II, Q77, A2, ad1). This, his only use of the word in the Summa, doesn't seem worth mentioning. If there is some other work in which he comments more extensively on it, then maybe. The.helping.people.tick 03:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I have never seen any indication that Aquinas was involved in alchemy. Perhps a cursory knowledge was required by the universities of the day. But I have found no evidence that he did any research in the subject. This is in contrast to the Oxford Franciscan Roger Bacon (an atagonist of Aquinas) who was very active in alchemy, including rudimentary gunpowder. Bacon's wiki article does not mention much about this. Tony Francis A E Francis 13:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lock

Dave, have you considered putting a lock on this article? I notice some of the more controversial articles have these which makes frivilous and vandalizing changes more difficult. Someone is continually adding some kind of reference to the misconcpetion that Aquinas was an advocate of "executing heretics". While that is true in a sense, in Summa Theologia he advocates it only after a person has been given a trial and has ignored at least two written warnings to cease the activity. So it was not as Draconian as one might preclude. The way it has been added is in a manner to discredit Aquinas as a legitimate Doctor of the Church. Tony FrancisA E Francis 13:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tony, sorry for the delay - no, I don't think a lock is necessary on this article. There are frequent cases of simple vandalism, but it's not unmanageable. I figure lots of articles have this kind of thing going on. The lock, I think, is for really extreme cases or really hot topics. David aukerman talk 13:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External links

Is it really necessary to advertise books? (Ave Maria Press). Some links don't add any information to Thomas Aquinas, I presume it's just advertising, so they should be wiped out. --Meldor 22:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] "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)

[edit] 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" [1]. 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)