Essay on Thomas Aquinas

The philosopher Aquinas had a unique thought process on the way humans acquire knowledge. He believed that by being “born with a blank slate” humans could gain knowledge through experiences and other methods. Aquinas believed that the soul plays a major part in the inquiry of knowledge. Unlike philosophers of old he believed that the soul and body were intertwined. Working together to push the soul forward in its quest to gain knowledge in this life.

Aquinas’ understanding of the roles of faith and reason can be likened to a house. Reason provides the foundation. This foundation draws heavily from the Greek philosophers. Without special revelation from God, Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle could not comprehend the fullness of wisdom only Christ provides. However, by observing general revelation, they reasoned their way to many universal truths such as the existence of a perfection outside of mankind–evidenced by Plato’s world of the forms–the benefits of the virtuous life–Socrates’ insistence that good men can never truly be harmed–and the distinction man holds from the animals–Aristotle’s recognition of the importance of logos. This use of reason compliments the teachings of Paul in Romans. He reminds the believers in Rome, “…since

For Aquinas intellect comes from the soul and the body working in unison. The soul is the substantial form of a living material thing. It is the actuality of a living material substance. Even though the rational soul is what differentiates humans from other living things, it does not make us human beings. Aquinas writes that "we could maintain this if we were to suppose that the activities of sensory souls are proper to such souls apart from bodies." (Aquinas 62) Aquinas is saying that we would be able to say that the human

The arguments made by Aquinas at first seem to be powerful. However, when examining and taking a closer look the arguments don’t seem to be as

Scientific reasoning has brought humanity to incredibly high levels of sophistication in all realms of knowledge. For Saint Thomas Aquinas, his passion involved the scientific reasoning of God. The existence, simplicity and will of God are simply a few topics which Aquinas explores in the Summa Theologica. Through arguments entailing these particular topics, Aquinas forms an argument that God has the ability of knowing and willing this particular world of contingent beings. The contrasting nature of necessary beings and contingent beings is at the heart of this debate.

Descartes’ argue that mind is better known than body by first claiming humans as fundamentally rational, meaning “a thing that doubts, understands, affirms, denies, is willing, is unwilling,” ( Descartes, 19) he therefore argues that humans have the ability to know their proper minds clearly and distinctly. He proposes the conception of the mind where the imagination and the senses are also inherent capabilities of the body (faculties), specifically powers of the mind.

Well unfortunately some believe their (omnipotent) God has all the answers and knows of every person’s next moves and what’s yet to come. I can somewhat agree with that but I don’t believe it is my duty to judge or prove the existence, and the all mighty power God has. I certainly am a believer of faith and that the existence of good and evil lies in all of us, regardless of the control God has over us. My opinion relates to how Aquinas believes that everyone’s consequences and endings they choose are because of the free choice God gives us all. As mentioned in the book, a great example that I find makes a perfect analogy is when he states, “He can create in a multitude of ways, No

Topic: How does Descartes argue that mind and body are distinct? Is he right? Am I real, or imaginary? In the First Meditation, Rene Descartes presents the main falsehoods in which he believed during his life, and the subsequent faultiness he experienced concerning the body of knowledge. The philosopher considers that it is never too late to rethink the knowledge about his personal being from the very foundations, and builds his thoughts on a certain ground starting from common things. It would be impossible to doubt each thing separately, so he expresses his doubt to the basic principles of knowledge he has already gained, since a conclusion would surely be doubted if its premise was doubted. He starts by doubting basic senses, by comparing feels in reality vs. in dreams. For example, even if I consciously feel warm when I am walking in the sun, I could not claim that I am hundred-­‐percentage sure I am awake, since I would feel it the same way when I was in dreams. Descartes presents this idea to show the doubt of reality and its elements. Also, he concludes that the common things we perceive are fashioned, and knowledge based on that can be doubted, such as physics and astronomy. This category of knowledge are different from geometry and arithmetic, which contain certain and definiteness in the simplest thing. By doubting the sense and knowledge based on it, Descartes argued his approach that the body and mind are two absolutely distinctive things. Descartes mentions God

Epistemology is the study of knowledge, or how we know anything and what it means to know anything. It is where one can explain how our mind is linked to reality and if these relationships are valid or invalid. In this paper, I will first present the views of Descartes on epistemology. Next, I will clarify his view of God, the body, and the mind. I will also discuss how well Descartes presents the arguments and how well they work for each topic. Lastly, I will discuss my overall agreement with his project for knowledge in general, however, I further discuss a few key components that later philosophers came to add on.

Empiricist philosophers such as John Locke believe that knowledge must come from experience. Others philosophers such as Descartes believe that knowledge is innate; this way of thinking is used by rationalist. In this paper I will discuss the difference between Descartes rationalism in his essays "The Meditations" and Locke's empiricism in his essays "An Essay Concerning Human Understanding". I will then lend my understanding as to what I believe as the ultimate source of knowledge.

In his Meditations on First Philosophy, Descartes strives first and foremost to provide an infallibly justified foundation for the empirical sciences, and second to prove the existence of God. I will focus on the first and second meditations in my attempt to show that, in his skepticism of the sources of knowledge, he fails to follow the rules he has set out in the Discourse on Method. First I claim that Descartes fails to draw the distinction between pure sensation and inference, which make up what he calls sensation, and then consider the consequences of this failure to follow his method. Second, I will show that in his treatment of thinking Descartes fails to distinguish between active and passive thinking.

Plato’s epistemological view is that one is born with innate concepts and ideas before they acquire additional knowledge. He argues that when asked a question, an ignorant person will still answer with some portion of truth, despite not having acquired any relevant knowledge. He claims this phenomenon is proof that one is born with innate species which allow one’s soul to understand corporeal ideas (116). Aquinas’ belief that one is born with a blank slate disagrees with this notion, and he responds with a convincing argument against the Platonic view. He points out that if one were to have an innate knowledge of all things, then it would be impossible for them to forget those ideas in the first place. Because of the unity of the body and soul, it is unreasonable that the body would hinder the soul from remembering what it naturally knows, because a natural entity should not be impede a natural occurrence. To further disprove Plato’s theory, Aquinas provides an example

This paper will attempt to explain Descartes’ first argument for the distinction that exists between mind and body. Dualism is a necessary aspect of Descartes’ metaphysics and epistemology. This distinction is important within the larger framework of Meditations on First Philosophy (1641) because after doubting everything (body, extension, senses, etc.), Descartes comes to the conclusion that because he doubts, he must be a thinking thing and therefore exist (p.43). This means that the mind must be separate and independent from the body. One can doubt that the body exists while leaving the mind intact. To doubt that the mind exists, however, is contradictory. For if the mind does not exist, how, or with what, is that doubt being accomplished.

Another issue with Aquinas argument leads to a discussion that John Dewey brought up in “The Process of Scientific Thinking" of the possibility of indemonstrable knowledge being mistaken or misinterpreted. Even if Scripture is absolute, people’s perception of the doctrine can be fallible.

Descartes and Augustine, in their respective examinations of the mind and God, come to the conclusion that the true understanding of all things derives from the withdrawal of the self from foreign influence and the necessity to look inward. Although each thinker’s journey or course of understanding was different, and at times rather contrasting, their ultimate realizations about knowledge are very coherent.