I have to keep bringing up this passage from Aquinas because it actually uproots the entire foundation of modern philosophy -
First he makes his statement, which contradicts the foundation of modern philosophy, viz. that the object of our mind or intellcect is our own mind or intellect (we think only of our own thought), and that what our senses perceive are their own sensible image (we see only our own sight, hear only our own hearing). He, on the contrary, asserts that we do not understand (intellectually grasp) our own thought (except in the special case of reflective cognition), but rather, our own thought is that /by which/ we understand (intellectually grasp) things. Similarly, what we sense is not our own sensual faculties, but rather, our sense is that by which we sense things:
> The intelligible species is to the intellect what the sensible image is to the sense. But the sensible image is not what is perceived, but rather that by which sense perceives. Therefore the intelligible species is not what is actually understood, but that by which the intellect understands.
He outlines the contrary position (which is the position of modern philosophers, probably from Descartes onwards):
>Some have asserted that our intellectual faculties know only the impression made on them; as, for example, that sense is cognizant only of the impression made on its own organ. According to this theory, the intellect understands only its own impression, namely, the intelligible species which it has received, so that this species is what is understood.
Then he shows how this position is false, with two reasons:
>This is, however, manifestly false for two reasons.
First, that it leads to solipsism. If our mind only understands what is in itself, rather than what is outside of itself, then the mind is ultimately trapped with in itself. The mind becomes a self-reflecting universe entire of itself. This was the problem that presented itself to philosophers like Hume & Kant:
>First, because the things we understand are the objects of science; therefore if what we understand is merely the intelligible species in the soul, it would follow that every science would not be concerned with objects outside the soul, but only with the intelligible species within the soul; thus, according to the teaching of the Platonists all science is about ideas, which they held to be actually understood [84, 1].
Second, because it leads to total epistemological relativism (which would then lead to moral relativism), and this is the relativism of modern philosophers. If all we understand is our own mind, then whatever we think is true, actually is true; because there is no external or objective order (of being) by which we can judge the truth of our own thought. If reality is just that which is in our minds, or the only knowable reality is that which is in our own minds, then there is no measure external to our minds by which we can judge its contents. Thus, every one of perceptions is true, which would ultimately violate the law of contradiction which states that something cannot be both true & false simultaenously, because all of our perceptions would be equally valid, so if 99% of humanity found a fruit sweet and 1% found the same fruit bitter, there would be no reason to say that the 1% is any less valid than the 99%, indeed, the fruit "in itself" would neither be sweet or bitter, it would all come to down to a "matter of perception" or opinion; this extends to the moral sphere, "there are no objective goods or evils, it all comes down to what one perceives to be good or evil":
>Secondly, it is untrue, because it would lead to the opinion of the ancients who maintained that "whatever seems, is true" [Aristotle, Metaph. iii. 5] and that consequently contradictories are true simultaneously. For if the faculty knows its own impression only, it can judge of that only. Now a thing seems according to the impression made on the cognitive faculty. Consequently the cognitive faculty will always judge of its own impression as such; and so every judgment will be true: for instance, if taste perceived only its own impression, when anyone with a healthy taste perceives that honey is sweet, he would judge truly; and if anyone with a corrupt taste perceives that honey is bitter, this would be equally true; for each would judge according to the impression on his taste. Thus every opinion would be equally true; in fact, every sort of apprehension.
All modern philosophy is based on this one simple error that we understand our own thought and sense our own senses, thus trapping us in our own minds and making us the unjudgable gods of our own sealed mental universes.
But, as St. Thomas himself states, following Aristotle:
> A small mistake in the beginning is a big one in the end.
>>7715587
>Thus, every one of perceptions is true, which would ultimately violate the law of contradiction which states that something cannot be both true & false simultaenously, because all of our perceptions would be equally valid, so if 99% of humanity found a fruit sweet and 1% found the same fruit bitter, there would be no reason to say that the 1% is any less valid than the 99%, indeed, the fruit "in itself" would neither be sweet or bitter, it would all come to down to a "matter of perception" or opinion; this extends to the moral sphere, "there are no objective goods or evils, it all comes down to what one perceives to be good or evil":
And this figures into modern democracy. Because modern philosophers did away with the objective order of being and made the mind the judge of its own self, all of our minds become equal inerrant gods (as I have said above). Before, it would be that wisdom or knowledge or truth meant that your mind understood the objective order of being (truth is the correspondence of the mind with being). Now, however, that the mind has turned away from being and in on itself, there is nothing whatsoever to judge it. So all minds are equal. Therefore, the political order must treat every one equally; politics is founded on the "social contract" of these individual and equal gods agreeing to something based on their own radical freedom and sovereignty. If there is to be any doctrine imposed on anyone, it can't be based on truth or knowledge, because each of us has equal right to say something is true or false; therefore, it has to come down to democratic vote: it's true if >50% of the gods say it is true, false if <50% of the gods say it is.
>>7715585
>>7715587
>>7715601
You assume there exists more than one person or mind. Prove that everything you experience isn't the product of your mind. Even this rebuttal is the product of your mind.
Why would perceptions be true or false in the same sense that fruit existing is true or false. You argue that perceptions of qualities of an object can be a truth. I would argue that they by their own nature and the nature of your argument, as subjective, cannot ever be truths. Objectivity is subjective and a golden goose. There is no thing that is objectivity in and of itself. There are only things and restrictions. An apple and the physical limitations of it to disintegrate into nothingness or release its energy. Every aspect of the senses is subjective to survival programming by natural selection. Objectivity cannot exist in a human mind however rational.
>all minds are equal.
Implying that there is something that is 'not equal' and 'equal' with relation to minds. That is a construct of the human mind. In reality there are minds that construct patterns and analyse these patterns and compare them to existing structures in the mind as a point of reference to feel good about or change when you feel dissonance.
Fruit being sweet is one minds interpretation or sensing of 'sweet', 'fruit'; and the """knowledge""" of what these things are, as a malleable and 'differing-between-individuals' reference point, so as to construct a 'truth'.
> therefore, it has to come down to democratic vote: it's true if >50% of the gods say it is true, false if <50% of the gods say it is.
Almost. It comes down to what can and will exist. What can and will be gotten away with. The only possible outcome where every alternative is met with obstacle. It just so happens that a majority usually results in object "truth" in democracy.
>>7715654
tl;dr
Minds don't exist
If your mind exists its not objective
Objectivity is subjective
Subjectivity can never deduce truth
Only the physical aspects of an object can be truths, which we cannot know as our senses are subjective
We can never be sure about any truth
tl'dr tl;dr
You know nothing Jon Snek
yea, modernity was a mistake
>>7715654
Everything he wrote is just over your head, trust me.
>>7715585
> he shows how this position is false, with two reasons:
> First, that it leads to solipsism. If our mind only understands what is in itself, rather than what is outside of itself, then the mind is ultimately trapped with in itself.
Even Aquinas' system can't escape the logical possibility of solipsism; at best, Aquinas' system IF true is incompatible with solipsism - but that's still only an unprovable IF, and this is an IF that most if not all all other epistemological systems are also vulnerable to. We can't logically refute a system by showing that it leads to (or is merely compatible with) consequences that are merely undesirable; the consequences instead have to be logically contradictory, which solipsism isn't.
>This was the problem that presented itself to philosophers like Hume & Kant:
Hume would say that our belief in the external world and other human minds is unavoidable, a result of habit; but from this he simply concludes that rationality is not the sole standard of human behavior, but there must be some faculty in us that is at least equally strong, guiding our practical conduct - and that this is proper and healthy. Even if solipsism can't be rationally disproved, it's practically irrelevant. This doesn't seem so far from where Aquinas' system leads us, it seems to me.
Kant's system, it seems to me, is also unable to disprove solipsism entirely - but I don't see this as a weakness of Kant's in comparison with Aquinas, since I think Aquinas is vulnerable in fundamentally the same way.
Basically what Kant does is shift the spatially external world, and all of the temporal occurrences within it, from the status of thing-in-itself to thing-as-appearance. All human minds are grounded on unknowable conditions-in-themselves, and when two (or three or four, etc.) human minds are related to some common thing-in-itself, that thing-in-itself will be represented with equal objectivity in both of their individual mental faculties of knowledge. One human might be colorblind, the other might have a fever affecting her sense of taste, and they might have different opinions about many issues - but they have the same kind of understanding faculty, so empirical objects (that is, objective representations) will appear to them fundamentally the same. If both people witness a house being demolished, they will both see the parts of the house crumble, they will both hear the sound of it crash, they will both feel the ground tremble beneath them, even if each of their own sensations are given in different colors, different tones, different smells (depending on possibly different states of their physical organs), and from different visual angles in space. Kant takes great pains to differentiate subjective representations from objective representations, as you can find in his critiques; this is his model of intersubjectivity, and I think you frivolously gloss it over with the whole of your
> Second
claim.
>>7715585
>>7717694
What's more, I think I might have brought these exact points against your claims in a recent thread or threads, but I don't see how all those points were defended in favor of Aquinas.
>>>/his/665920
>>7717694
nah
>>7717727
>notion of "not willing yourself to be a retard"
Expand?
>>7717533
i know, it's too hard for me to work out what the fuck he is trying to say. And frankly, if you can't explain yourself in a way that people understand, what's the point? You may as well accept solipsism and stop trying to communicate with people.
Are you trying to say something like this?
Modern philosophy says: Mind <-> Thought <-> Senses. Mind can access thought and not senses, therefore leading to solipsism because the mind can only know its own thoughts.
Aquinas says: Mind <thought> Senses. Mind uses thought to understand senses, but mind doesn't understand thought.
Tell me if this went over my head too.
>>7719031
>Are you trying to say something like this?
>Modern philosophy says: Mind <-> Thought <-> Senses. Mind can access thought and not senses, therefore leading to solipsism because the mind can only know its own thoughts.
Not necessarily. In Kant's modern system, for example, senses and thoughts are both parts of the mind, helping to comprise it, rather than all being at different levels.
>>7715585
>If our mind only understands what is in itself, rather than what is outside of itself, then the mind is ultimately trapped with in itself.
you need Hegel, boy-o. this is true, but it does not automatically lead to solipsism.
>>7719201
I don't see how one could say Senses -> Thought -> Mind, and deny Senses influence Mind. If the outside influences Senses, and these Senses influence Thought, doesn't the change to Thought alter what the Mind understands?
If you can theorize a change in the Thought <-> Mind circlejerk brought about by the influence of Senses on Thought, doesn't that reject solipsism?
>>7715585
>>7715587
Neither of his two 'reasons' for the current model being false are proofs at all, but rather slips into the is/ought fallacy.
1. That is leads to solipsism
This is not a problem
2. It leads to epistemological relativism
This is not a problem
Aquinas appears to be caught up in the concept of 'contradiction', fundamentally unable to take himself out of the framework of an 'objective reality'
>>7719633
That's exactly why he's becoming more popular. We're coming to the point where relativism and solipsism are becoming a problem outside philosophy.
Bump in for interest
>>7719867
your cute wanna fug?
If you actually think there's a contradiction in one person finding honey sweet, another finding it bitter, and both experiences being equally "true," then you are functionally retarded. The two persons' experiences of honey are completely separate and do not contradict each other in any way.
>If there is to be any doctrine imposed on anyone, it can't be based on truth or knowledge, because each of us has equal right to say something is true or false; therefore, it has to come down to democratic vote: it's true if >50% of the gods say it is true, false if <50% of the gods say it is.
>therefore, it has to come down to democratic vote
That doesn't follow in any way.
>>7718037
Kant literally says it's impossible to will yourself to be stupid.
