Whats wrong with Natural Law?
Doesn't bridge the is-ought gap
Next question
>>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.
>>651272
Final Causality bridges the gap.
So is this to say that final causality is the core of the issue?
>>651265
Nothing, it just makes liberals mad because it proves that any form of sex other than heterosexual procreative intercourse is morally wrong.
>>651310
>Nothing, it just makes liberals laugh because it preaches that any form of sex other than heterosexual procreative intercourse is morally wrong.
There, fixed
>>651265
I'm just going to hijack this thread.
Why is aquino so important in medieval philosophy? I read and know a bit about the period including a tiny bit of canon law but the intellectual world of the era is completely foreign to me.
>>651325
>liberals
>laughing
they cant even handle some banter
>>651293
>final causality
No such thing as. This is a complete contradiction in terms
>>651326
well he influenced everyone after him and was pretty famous shortly after his death. He pretty much defines Scholasticism along Scotus and Ockham
>>651265
>natural
>law
Would you like some dry water to go with your natural law?
>>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.
>>651926
>dry water
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.
>>651972
Well Christian philosophy is literally just remixing Aristotle and Plato, at least until Hegel arrived on the scene and gave rise to people like Kirkeegaard.
There's a neat thread going on here discussing how early Christianity drew on neo-platoism.
>>651992
I just find it interesting that somehow taking Aristotelian form theory to an extreme basically ends you up back at Platonism.
>>651949
Aquinas - /x/ for posh people.
>believing in someone who believed in transmutation
Why
>mfw all these Protties and Greeks are so mad about Aquinas being right
>mfw his theology basically converted all the smart greeks and protestants
Go to Thomas!
>>651930
Micromégas
>>651949
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."
>>652314
>there wasnt any conscience or morality before Jesus
>the Orthodox literally believe this
No wonder all the smart Greeks returned to Catholicism, how can anyone handle such absurdity?
>>651908
>contradiction
It isn't at all and we aren't talking about whether it exists, but whether it is the core of the issue.
>>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.
>>652306
Newton was an alchemist
>>652314
forgot your trip, Constantine
>>652654
This is true, he followed the teachings of hermes trismagetius, who in addition to having a mysticism also had some of the basics of chemistry. Newton was also deep into Kabbalism.
Our history sort of remembers his accomplishments and tries to brush the strange stuff under the carpet.
>>651310
You mean aside from the fact it doesn't hold up under philosophical scrutiny without some asinine assertion like "God said so" to circumvent that?
>>653228
No need to lie to defend yourself.
>>652674
Constantine ditched the trip because some fawning fanboys couldnt keep their dicks in their pants
>>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.
>>653361
The original positive claim lies with the person claiming that it proves that non-reproductive intercourse is wrong. Rejecting that out of hand is legitimate.
>>653381
No it doesn't you idiot, that view just doesn't hold up.
>>653386
Yes, it does, you fucking imbecile.
>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.
>>651949
Jesus, you can't understand basic philosophy and wants to defecate your own stupid rules over a fucking Saint Philosopher inspired by God.
>>651265
Law is a concept. Nature doesn't deal in concepts.
>>653395
No, I'm saying rejecting it out of hand is not legitimate. Learn to fucking read.
>>653416
Law is a reality.
>>653419
Reality is a concept.
>>653416
It is a model based on nature's organization and structure.
>>653425
Concept of what? :^)
>>653437
Void.
>>653442
Void is not real?
>>653445
Asking that is ridiculous. I shouldn't even be saying "void" or "nature" if i'm to get my lack of point across.
>>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.
>>653477
It would be nice if it was real. Luckly you're not God, because if the Universerse depended on you, we would be in problems.
>>651930
Voltaire was really not as smart or clever as he liked to think he was.
>>653480
God is a concept.
Isn't manmade climate change a sort of proof for natural law?
Benedict liked to think so, or something to that effect.
>>653490
Actually, God is a place where some holy spectacle lies.
>>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."
>>651265
You can't establish "nature" without human consciousness.
Isn't this the guy that talked about how Adam's sperm contained the souls of all humans that would ever be born?
Natural law is the foundation of common law and yet common law vehemently denies this influence. Otherwise, what the hell is an "unalienable" right?
>>653555
Right but us making a model of reality and working with it is common in every way of life so this is no exception.
>>655184
Muh feels
>>655184
A right considered fundamental to the functioning of a just society. I'm pretty sure some people would argue they're inherent to human life, but they're really just useful constructs.
>>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
>>651326
He just copypasta'd some sandnigger wankers and people thought he's some important shit
>>651265
Either an oxymoron or a redundancy. Not quite sure. I'll get back to you on that.
idealism
