>>651265 Well there is natural law. However Aquinas supports man's law speficially the law of priests. He literally beleived that certain truths can never be proven and one must just blindly obey the priests that have been given exclusivivity. Essentially he turns God into his own personal sock puppet.
>>651326 With the set of Scholastism he was the most influential. His domain really shrinks once you leave that set though. I think his most famous place outside of that is when Voltaire made fun of him.
Aquinas had a theory that the universe was made spefically for humans and had all sorts of proofs. Voltaire wrote a short story in which aliens from Jupiter come to earth and observe the planet. The aliens laugh their ass when they hear the Aquina's ideas and in general laugh at a lot of Christian theology.
Funny enough that's actually a thing in Aquina's silly world. He takes Aristotle very literally and thinks essenses can exist seperatly from their material subject. In other words you could have the essence of wetness independent of water and water that has it's wetness removed.
This is the entire basis for how things like transmogrification work. The non-material 'essense' of Christ's material body is inside the material cracker. It's also the same principles that were supposed to govern alchemy. Aquinas actually makes a difference between the 'evil' witchcraft alchemy magic and the 'good' alchemy of God in one of his writings discussing demonic sorcery.
>>651949 >He takes Aristotle very literally and thinks essenses can exist seperatly from their material subject. In other words you could have the essence of wetness independent of water and water that has it's wetness removed. So Platonism.
>>651949 But Aquinas doesnt say that at all though. He doesnt say anything of the sort about essences. >>651972 >So Platonism. Aquinas is pretty Aristotelian, despite what that anon with his stupid strawman says
It's the Western conception of it is wrong. In Orthodox Christianity, it's the conscience God endowed us with, the Law written on our hearts. In Western theology, it's, "Masturbation is worse than rape because masturbation goes against natural law."
>>651926 >making fun of something because you disagree with it
>>651949 No, Aquinas is not a platonic realist but a moderate realist.
>In other words you could have the essence of wetness independent of water and water that has it's wetness removed.
No, you idiot, that's not how it works at all. You can't remove the essence of something, you only make that things essentially something else. Getting rid of the essence of water means that it isn't water anymore, so "dry water" still makes no sense.
>>653238 The only person needing to defend themselves is yourself. You must demonstrate the philosophical validity of your assertion before it can be considered to have proven anything beyond jack and shit. You said it proved something, without backing that statement up, I rejected it with the same level of evidence you provided.
>>651265 It paints the subjective as objective, It generally involves observe how people you like act in a way that achieves a goal that you like within your society and then holding that to be a universal law that all other humans should be and are failing to live up to. Which funnily enough is the opposite of how natural laws are created.
>Nothing, it just makes liberals mad because it proves that any form of sex other than heterosexual procreative intercourse is morally wrong. >it proves that any form of sex other than heterosexual procreative intercourse is wrong >it proves
This is a positive claim, which was rejected out of hand. Learn to fucking read.
>>653467 Your reality is conceptual, you believe it to be what is actually void; void of conception. Nature is void, "nature's law" is your conception of how void functions. But void is void; void of conception.
>>653418 Except it is, he made an unsubstantiated positive statement, which got rejected out of hand.
Also >>653274 pretty much nailed it with objections that are related to natural law itself, rather than that poster's assertion that it proves sweet fuck all. Without the ability to rest on "God has my back, nyahnyah" the entire concept falls to shit and winds up being "well people I like do things I like and seem to do alright, ergo all people should do those things."
>>655214 The process by which natural laws in the sense of scientific models and natural law in a philosophical sense are established are basically the exact opposite of one another. Natural law in a scientific sense is passive observation, rather than an active declaration, as natural law in a philosophical sense is.
>>657615 I'm not trying to compare the system Natural Law to the ideas of laws that are intrinsic to nature. Natural Law and how it functions relies heavily on the belief of things in nature made for ends beyond themselves (such as the understanding of a heart existing so to pump blood). This Final Causality is ultimately found through "passive observation" and Natural Law in the philosophical sense is an application of that model, hence my post >>655214
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with the post's information.