3 ms·
Aquinas wasn't quite so thorough in all his works. It's mostly the Summa Theologica which is so rigorous. I agree with the application however, for one to brook
by astine 19y ago
Aquinas wasn't quite so thorough in all his works. It's mostly the Summa Theologica which is so rigorous. I agree with the application however, for one to brook disagreement with another, one should usually understand the subject better than that person. This implies understanding your opponent's arguments better than your opponent. If don't understand your opponents arguments better than he, who are you to say that he is wrong in making them?
(trivia about Aquinas: his handwriting was so bad, that there are only about 10 people or so in the world today that can read it.)
- mejohnsn 19y agoI am glad that people are thinking of Aquainas in this connection. In fact, I _still_ think his book on logical fallacies is one of the best. For example, he is the _only_ one to get the defintion of "amphigology" right. Unfortunately, when you look at the link where you can find it online at http://www.corpusthomisticum.org/dp3.html http://www.corpusthomisticum.org/dp3.html, you will see why so few people still read this book:(
- sixtorende 19y agoDo you find anything wrong in that online edition of the original Latin text?