IMing Aquinas, Republished
Ink-Blood21:01: Hey!
AngelicDoctah21:01: In and through Our Blessed Lord Jesu, I greet you.
Ink-Blood21:01: Como estai Fra Tomaso?
AngelicDoctah21:02: I pray you are well in your body-soul composite : )
Ink-Blood21:02: Hahaha, thank you. Listen, I have some things I really, really, really want to ask you about lately. It kindof annoys me that you are dead: ha! ; ) jk But anyways, I can't complain. At least we can still communicate!! yeay!
AngelicDoctah21:02: Any hour, I am here.
Ink-Blood21:02: lol, yup. Well, there's been alotta talk about you. Its been goin on for say like the past, uh, I dunno 1000 years or something. hell i know ppl with 'THOMIST' license plates!?!?! yer famous! LOL haha if that happened with my name it's be--'SOPHIST'--woohoo!
Angelic Doctah21:03: Haha, yes, well maybe they should say 'DUMOXIST'. Any reference to me that inspires admiration is entirely due to awe inspired by reflections bestowed of His infinite perfections. There is nothing desirable to be seen in me unless it was in pertinence and relation to Him, or if it led the mind to greater apprehension of Him, knowledge of Him.
Ink-Blood21:03: Yeah, we've got, like, everyone writing about you, Meister Eckhart, Voltaire, Rutler, John Paul II-Do you wanna know what Voltaire says about you ...? Listen to this- "...after the adventure (!) of the Crusade, a thousand schoolmen arose ... the subtil docter, the seraphic doctor, the angelic doctor, etc. (that is definetely 1000 schoolmen) who were all very sure that they (emphasis may suggest that Voltaire subtlely portrays each theologian as writing only from a personal, subjective idea of truth. He is here writing about differing accounts of the soul of man in the history of philosophy) [each] had a very clear and distinct idea of the soul, and yet they wrote in such a manner that one would conclude they were resolved no-one should understand a word in their writings." Oh pleeease. Its like Voltaire's saying: Look! All these different writers! So many! And they all had different ideas! Naturally it must be that none of them know what they're talking about and, ipso facto, only idiots believe in objective truth, especially since they actually have no clue as to what's being taught/written! Ha. Personally I think he probably just had ADD like I do and couldn't focus on the Summa. JK - but I mean, come one-the guy is totally bashing you (particulary in the context of the whole work: Letter XIII, On Mr. Locke). But, dang, we should call Voltaire the Subtil Doctor, hahaha, ttyl duns scotus! But um, what else was i gonna say? I forget.
AngelicDoctah21:06: Yes, it would seem that Voltaire is not only accusing me, but any Theologian who, in progression of time and grace, is brought into the light of deeper understanding, and hence sounds momentarily to be contradicting his predeccesors. Perhaps Voltaire did not realize that what seemed like distinct ideas were usually developments in common ideas. For theology is the science of God, and ones knowledge and understanding of it developes and grows, as in any other science. (It is self-evident that in every science knowledge and understanding deepens)
Ink-Blood21:08: Not self-evident to Voltaire I guess. Or maybe it would have been if they had Ritalin back then! lol, Yeah, I bet he just had a chemical imbalance. Too bad the biological science back then sucked. HAHAHA Can't you see the mediaeval advertisement for Ritalin? "Complete your knowledge of God! Read the entire Summa Theologica with aid from newly developed drug. (Side affects may include insanity and possibly death) Hey! You've survived the Black Death~ you can take on a little white piiill!"
AngelicDoctah21:09: Well, perhaps Voltaire choose not to see what would have been self-evident. Evidence for any discovery is usually something painfully sought after, bonum arduum. This does not imply that the truth uncovered is the mind's construction in order to "prove" objective truth. Simply because a tenet of reality is hard to see or understand does not mean it is not still there, and true. You may find an example of this in Quantum Physics, which informs you of the existence of certain properties which no ordinary man had ever seen before. The scholar of science had to seek after that deeper knowledge and discovered that these properties existed before our knowledge of them, that they are prior in existence to our knowledge of them. Also, I suggest to your consideration that it is foolish to insinuate the credibility of mediaeval sciences as null. The original computer could be considered a matter for laughter, if one considers its immense size and impracticality. But this immensity only becomes laughable when one looks at it in proportion to its posterity, which owes its existence to the former. I also put forth that to say one has "complete knowledge of God" would imply that one has full knowledge of the infinite - impossible for a finite creature. There is always more of God to be known. As God is the One Supreme Reality, we must always be coming to a heightened knowledge of that reality. And as to Voltaire's chemical or mental imbalances I cannot comment.
Ink-Blood21:12: riiiight right i know, know. so this is my main deal... the whole question if God created everything how come there is evil and how can he allow it, you know, blabla thats not my question, since you said that evil is a lacking of a due good not a thing created by God. BUT since you wrote the defin-itive book on evil i figure hear it from you... so if as you say, evil is not an is but an is not, i mean, if evil simply, as you say = a lack of a due good as in the case of an infant dying from SIDS, in which he should have lived a full life but never did, that infant dying is a lack of a due good, the good lacking being the LIFE which is gone, right???
AngelicDoctah21:12: Yes. That is how I understood evil.
Ink-Blood21:13: I do not dispute your definition. But I want to put a question to you. In every particular instance of evil one does not find SIMPLY a lacking of a good. There is always a particular good there which is NOT due to that particualr situation. This is why I had problems trying to understand your definition of evil in studying metaphysics and felt it needed further clarification. It seems to me that there is not simply a lack of life, but a presence of a disease not due to this infant, in its innocence and youth. This disease IS a reality. So I ask if evil is not simply a lack of a due good but a lacking alongside an un-due good? and in that I do not say that the disease is good but it is the particular atoms, or as with a cancer, the normal ordered cycle of cell depth becomes abnormal. These cells, good in themselves, come together in a structure in un-due position, so to speak, in disarray. So i'm sure you agree that in the lack of order--there is not simply a lack of order but a presence of a misplaced good, existent thing. It is not an empty space alone but a space in which something good is there which is not meant to be there. Int the case of the tsunami, no-one would conclude that water is evil. Water exists! but is was there, present in a "bad" un-due way! The water in formation of a tsunami hence is water present in a place it should not be (if you say evil is the lacking of water on dry land- that is not the fullness of the present reality). I do not disaree with you entirely. I simply suggest that evil is both a lacking and a presence, not solely a lacking.
2005 SM
AngelicDoctah21:01: In and through Our Blessed Lord Jesu, I greet you.
Ink-Blood21:01: Como estai Fra Tomaso?
AngelicDoctah21:02: I pray you are well in your body-soul composite : )
Ink-Blood21:02: Hahaha, thank you. Listen, I have some things I really, really, really want to ask you about lately. It kindof annoys me that you are dead: ha! ; ) jk But anyways, I can't complain. At least we can still communicate!! yeay!
AngelicDoctah21:02: Any hour, I am here.
Ink-Blood21:02: lol, yup. Well, there's been alotta talk about you. Its been goin on for say like the past, uh, I dunno 1000 years or something. hell i know ppl with 'THOMIST' license plates!?!?! yer famous! LOL haha if that happened with my name it's be--'SOPHIST'--woohoo!
Angelic Doctah21:03: Haha, yes, well maybe they should say 'DUMOXIST'. Any reference to me that inspires admiration is entirely due to awe inspired by reflections bestowed of His infinite perfections. There is nothing desirable to be seen in me unless it was in pertinence and relation to Him, or if it led the mind to greater apprehension of Him, knowledge of Him.
Ink-Blood21:03: Yeah, we've got, like, everyone writing about you, Meister Eckhart, Voltaire, Rutler, John Paul II-Do you wanna know what Voltaire says about you ...? Listen to this- "...after the adventure (!) of the Crusade, a thousand schoolmen arose ... the subtil docter, the seraphic doctor, the angelic doctor, etc. (that is definetely 1000 schoolmen) who were all very sure that they (emphasis may suggest that Voltaire subtlely portrays each theologian as writing only from a personal, subjective idea of truth. He is here writing about differing accounts of the soul of man in the history of philosophy) [each] had a very clear and distinct idea of the soul, and yet they wrote in such a manner that one would conclude they were resolved no-one should understand a word in their writings." Oh pleeease. Its like Voltaire's saying: Look! All these different writers! So many! And they all had different ideas! Naturally it must be that none of them know what they're talking about and, ipso facto, only idiots believe in objective truth, especially since they actually have no clue as to what's being taught/written! Ha. Personally I think he probably just had ADD like I do and couldn't focus on the Summa. JK - but I mean, come one-the guy is totally bashing you (particulary in the context of the whole work: Letter XIII, On Mr. Locke). But, dang, we should call Voltaire the Subtil Doctor, hahaha, ttyl duns scotus! But um, what else was i gonna say? I forget.
AngelicDoctah21:06: Yes, it would seem that Voltaire is not only accusing me, but any Theologian who, in progression of time and grace, is brought into the light of deeper understanding, and hence sounds momentarily to be contradicting his predeccesors. Perhaps Voltaire did not realize that what seemed like distinct ideas were usually developments in common ideas. For theology is the science of God, and ones knowledge and understanding of it developes and grows, as in any other science. (It is self-evident that in every science knowledge and understanding deepens)
Ink-Blood21:08: Not self-evident to Voltaire I guess. Or maybe it would have been if they had Ritalin back then! lol, Yeah, I bet he just had a chemical imbalance. Too bad the biological science back then sucked. HAHAHA Can't you see the mediaeval advertisement for Ritalin? "Complete your knowledge of God! Read the entire Summa Theologica with aid from newly developed drug. (Side affects may include insanity and possibly death) Hey! You've survived the Black Death~ you can take on a little white piiill!"
AngelicDoctah21:09: Well, perhaps Voltaire choose not to see what would have been self-evident. Evidence for any discovery is usually something painfully sought after, bonum arduum. This does not imply that the truth uncovered is the mind's construction in order to "prove" objective truth. Simply because a tenet of reality is hard to see or understand does not mean it is not still there, and true. You may find an example of this in Quantum Physics, which informs you of the existence of certain properties which no ordinary man had ever seen before. The scholar of science had to seek after that deeper knowledge and discovered that these properties existed before our knowledge of them, that they are prior in existence to our knowledge of them. Also, I suggest to your consideration that it is foolish to insinuate the credibility of mediaeval sciences as null. The original computer could be considered a matter for laughter, if one considers its immense size and impracticality. But this immensity only becomes laughable when one looks at it in proportion to its posterity, which owes its existence to the former. I also put forth that to say one has "complete knowledge of God" would imply that one has full knowledge of the infinite - impossible for a finite creature. There is always more of God to be known. As God is the One Supreme Reality, we must always be coming to a heightened knowledge of that reality. And as to Voltaire's chemical or mental imbalances I cannot comment.
Ink-Blood21:12: riiiight right i know, know. so this is my main deal... the whole question if God created everything how come there is evil and how can he allow it, you know, blabla thats not my question, since you said that evil is a lacking of a due good not a thing created by God. BUT since you wrote the defin-itive book on evil i figure hear it from you... so if as you say, evil is not an is but an is not, i mean, if evil simply, as you say = a lack of a due good as in the case of an infant dying from SIDS, in which he should have lived a full life but never did, that infant dying is a lack of a due good, the good lacking being the LIFE which is gone, right???
AngelicDoctah21:12: Yes. That is how I understood evil.
Ink-Blood21:13: I do not dispute your definition. But I want to put a question to you. In every particular instance of evil one does not find SIMPLY a lacking of a good. There is always a particular good there which is NOT due to that particualr situation. This is why I had problems trying to understand your definition of evil in studying metaphysics and felt it needed further clarification. It seems to me that there is not simply a lack of life, but a presence of a disease not due to this infant, in its innocence and youth. This disease IS a reality. So I ask if evil is not simply a lack of a due good but a lacking alongside an un-due good? and in that I do not say that the disease is good but it is the particular atoms, or as with a cancer, the normal ordered cycle of cell depth becomes abnormal. These cells, good in themselves, come together in a structure in un-due position, so to speak, in disarray. So i'm sure you agree that in the lack of order--there is not simply a lack of order but a presence of a misplaced good, existent thing. It is not an empty space alone but a space in which something good is there which is not meant to be there. Int the case of the tsunami, no-one would conclude that water is evil. Water exists! but is was there, present in a "bad" un-due way! The water in formation of a tsunami hence is water present in a place it should not be (if you say evil is the lacking of water on dry land- that is not the fullness of the present reality). I do not disaree with you entirely. I simply suggest that evil is both a lacking and a presence, not solely a lacking.
2005 SM
posted by Velvet at 7:02 AM
5 Comments:
2 people asked me...so who is this thomas aquinas guy, as in, who is the one i was IM-ing? well, um, it was me! funny, but i'm not schizophrenic, honest. adios!
I think you are schizophrenic! But the thing about it is.. both of you are wonderful and beautiful... So Hooray for Schizophrenia!
what ??????????MPD?!!!!!!?!??!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?
are u kidddiiing??
but the add and bpd make sense i alos have insomnia and social anxiety woohoo fun stuFF!!!!!! lol
scizophrenic too? LOL
wow...and BPD would explain WHAT exactly?????? yikes and a half...
a textbook case?????
ugh that makes me mad to hear such things said of myself
thanks ryan!
BTW, for your information I was trying at the time of composing this to emphasize the difference in tone and personality for the creative aspect of it to make it sound like it really was thomas aquinas, that was my intention.
Post a Comment
<< Home